Toronto Star: Waterfront School Kids Are the Losers if Island Airport Expands

posted by NationBuilder Support on September 25, 2013

Columnist Chris Hume: Porter Airlines' Plans to Expand Island Airport Put School and Community Centre at Risk of Demolition
September 25, 2013
TORONTO - The main lesson the kids at the Waterfront School are learning these days is that they are not wanted. So much so that some have proposed the school — and the Harbourfront Community Centre that shares the building — be torn down to make way for a parking garage.
The building, on the southeast corner of Bathurst and Queens Quay, is in the way of passengers heading to the Billy Bishop Toronto Island Airport. That’s where Porter Airlines has operated for years. It’s also the facility Porter wants to expand so it can fly passenger jets from the now undersized runway.
So far, Porter and its many allies have managed to frame the debate in terms of noise. Their new aircraft, they assure us, are so quiet they “whisper.”
That’s the least of our problems.
What Porter and its loudest shill, the federal Toronto Port Authority, don’t want us to know about are the jet fuel storage tanks that would come with an enlarged airport, the enhanced food service operations, the increased traffic, the stream of taxis, the flight path expansion and, of course, the safety and health of students at Waterfront School.
As long as the jets are quiet, they expect Torontonians will be, too.
“My concern is the safety of students,” says Toronto District School Board chair Chris Bolton. “There have been health issues; we’ve been testing air quality down there and most of the pollution isn’t from planes but vehicular traffic. The school has become an island surrounded by traffic; crossing the street is dangerous.
“Our problem is that the situation in regard to the airport and the community has got to an untenable place. Traffic is the major concern. I’m not sure where the proposal is, but there are a myriad of proposals. I sure don’t want to take the school out of the neighbourhood. We have a long-term agreement with the city and we didn’t enter into it with the idea we’d have to leave it so soon.”
The school, which has won architectural awards, opened in 1997. It serves the growing midrise and highrise community around Norway Park and beyond.
“The airport is not my issue,” Bolton insists. “My issue is making sure kids are safe getting to and from school. We’ve asked the city for a lay-by so parents can drop their kids off. We’ve also asked the police for a crossing guard.”
“It just gets crazier and crazier,” says local councillor Adam Vaughan, making no effort to hide his frustration. “The intersection is a bloody mess. The problem is that an airport and school zone don’t mix. The Tripartite Agreement balances interests.”
The agreement to which Vaughan refers, signed by the Toronto Harbour Commission (now port authority), the city and Ottawa, dates back to 1983. It restricts use of the airport and the aircraft that fly in and out of it.
“There’s no need to expand the airport,” Vaughan argues. “If it was up to me, I’d close it tomorrow. The do-nothing option is the best for all the players.”
It’s no surprise, then, that Porter and its allies, most vocally the port authority, are lobbying so viciously to get jets into Billy Bishop Airport.
Already, Porter has gained numerous concessions from public authorities, with precious little public input. The most notable example is the pedestrian tunnel now under construction.
But that’s not enough. Just last week, Porter employees packed a public meeting, hoping to drown out anyone who might disagree with them.
Toronto’s former chief planner, Paul Bedford, calls the proposal “insanity.”
Whose interests would the expansion serve, he asks, public or private?
Interestingly, no one is demanding the airport be closed; only that it abides by rules laid down decades ago.
Christopher Hume can be reached at chume@thestar.ca
Source: Toronto Star article